< December 07	December 09 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Salting will follow this deletion. Missvain (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted 14 months ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis), this micronation seems to have shrunk from 109 to 75 citizens in the meantime, while still not having accrued anything like sufficient coverage. (I don't know what the previous iteration looked like, so I'm not going to CSD G4) Sources consist of "governmental" material (4/10), press releases (3/10), a promo blurb, and the same RTL write-up twice. That's not getting anywhere near WP:GNG. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it gone down to 75 citizens? Official Verdis source says reached over 1,000. https://www.verdisgov.org/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.255 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's in that doubled-up RTL source, however I see that that is from 2019, so probably out of date. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and salt due to the history at Free Republic of Verdis and Verdis. I was able to view the version deleted at AfD, and the recreated version offers no new sources that meaningfully contribute to notability. The Lika article is a duplicate of the RTL article which was in the article at the time of deletion and the remaining sources are the project's own website/social media and press releases. Spicy (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I suggest just creating a redirect as approved a while ago by Spicy himself and Rosguill. I believe that although it may not be notable enough for an article now, it is at least notable enough for a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.36.255 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and add indefinite ECP for the same reason as Spicy's argument for salting. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Spicy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no redirect. I don't see evidence this is more notable than an Illinois football player or an Idaho contractor. The "coverage" appears to just be press releases and their own website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect - this is just a figment of someone's imagination. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors with the above perspective should probably remove the mention from Terra nullius _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - we've been through this, and the only reason this page exists at all is that the creator knew Free Republic of Verdis had already been salted, but wanted to create the article anyway. MarginalCost (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings made at PatchWerk Recording Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:RAWDATA; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio. There is no evidence that recording at this particular studio is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many albums and songs have been recorded here. Some of them are notable. Some of them less so. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. This list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP.

See also the discussion for List of artists who have recorded at PatchWerk Recording Studios. Spiderone 20:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the prior AFD consensus listed in nom. If that failed, I don’t know what hope this has... Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded at PatchWerk Recording Studios. This one is not even supported by references, meaning that someone felt the need to create a list for purposes of fan trivia. Okay, but such a thing does not belong on Wikipedia per the policies cited by the nominator. Put it on a fansite instead. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any of this stuff is referenced it should be merged into the main article. jp×g 06:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Hall II[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello! On behalf of the company Salty and Mr. Hall, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've nominated this pseudo-biography about a low-profile individual for deletion, per WP:BLP1E. I've completed a thorough review of available sourcing and determined that Mr. Hall is not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time, per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for people. Of the 12 citations in the current article, 9 point to Mr. Hall's official site, which fails reliable sourcing and cannot be used to establish notability under the basic criteria for people, and has been inactive since 2017. References #2 and #5 are primary sources as well, and #2 does not mention the subject. Reference #11 is the only citation that qualifies for inclusion. However, it does not qualify as significant coverage. None of the sources cited provide the type of in-depth coverage required for establishing notability, and the article's main focus is an allegation about something for which he was later cleared.

I performed searches for Mr. Hall on Google, Google News (and archive), and Google Books, using a variety of names he may be referenced with including "James L. Hall II", "James L. Hall", "James Hall", and "Jim Hall". All of these yielded very few or no results associated with James L. Hall II, so I continued to search by adding his various business associations. The only coverage I'm seeing specifically about the subject is this Deseret News article about the initial fraud accusation, which is already referenced above, and this follow-up piece from the same outlet after Mr. Hall was cleared of the charges. Neither source provides adequate biographical detail, whether considered on their own merits or in conjunction, to produce an article that would meet Wikipedia's standards. The fact that coverage of the case remained local further indicates that this subject should not have an article, per Wikipedia's policy on subjects notable only for one event. Other mentions of the subject found through searches are from primary sources that cannot be used to establish notability.

There's not enough coverage to flesh out a biography with details about his early life, education, career, personal life, etc. Coverage of Mr. Hall appears to be minimal, and entirely centered around a single event that was not widely covered. Per pseudo-biographies: "If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." I should also note, the article seems to have been created by a single purpose account back in 2011. I understand that my conflict-of-interest in bringing this article forward for deletion may cause skepticism, particularly because it involves a page with reference to a lawsuit. However, given the lack of reliable sources about the subject, Wikipedia's policy for people who are not public figures, and are accused of a crime, and previously cited policies, I cannot find any reason to keep this article.

I appreciate editors taking the time to review this deletion request. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could be totally wrong, but if Mr. Hall has requested that this be deleted, doesn't the nominator link to that request? Also, Mr. Hall wasn't alleged to have committed fraud; he had a bench trial and was acquitted, according to this article (although several links are dead). I agree, though, that he seems to be a non-notable individual. Caro7200 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the coi and the subjects desire to remove the damaging information, I believe he is indeed not notable. The article can be deleted per WP:BIODEL, and as a WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Admins do need to take a closer look though. Less Unless (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims of notability that would meet WP:GNG I also looked at a version of the article from a couple years ago, no claims of notability found. I did a google search and got lots of hits, but it is a common name. I did not find anything showing this person is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:BLP1E. I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place. I don't need to add anything more to the discussion, except that I once created a similar article and it was crushed into the salt of Carthage. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very clearly not a notable businessman. So it does not matter whether the subject wants this article, there is no reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stemming from this discussion, this is WP:RAWDATA; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio. There is no evidence that recording at this particular studio is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many albums and songs have been recorded here. Some of them are notable. Some of them less so. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. This list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP. Spiderone 20:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even more of an indiscriminate collection of info than List of artists who have recorded at Abbey Road Studios Username 6892 22:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated in my vote over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded at Abbey Road Studios, there seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor. But this list proves that the studio is a business and if someone pays then they're in. Walking in the door is not notable. This list may serve as interesting trivia for historians, but it belongs at a fansite and is too raw to function as a useful Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article index complementary to Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios per NOTDUP and LISTPURP. We comprehensively categorize Category:Albums by recording location, and as we can see in Category:Albums recorded in the United States and Category:Albums recorded in the United States, we have plenty of subcategories for specific recording studios. No argument has been given to treat for treating this one differently. If it's WP:DEFINING enough to categorize, it's certainly important enough to list. The precedent the nom cites presented a very different relationship (musician to any studio they had used) than album to studio where it was recorded. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered this argument before. WP:NOTDUP says that a list should not be nominated for deletion simply because the topic is also represented by a category. That argument was not made in this nomination, which contends that the list article is deficient due to the cited rules for list articles. The above vote is almost entirely about the existence of the category, which is not being disputed. The argument that an unsatisfactory list article should be kept, because there is a also a category about the same thing, is unconvincing and also veers into bureaucratic thinking. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I view it as holistic thinking. It doesn't make sense that we'd delete a list as "unsatisfactory" when it's organized around the same concept that we categorize the same listed albums by, particularly when it's part of a larger system of categorizing them. That also implies a broader consensus for this way of classifying albums, at least until a broader CFD establishes otherwise. An AFD that targets one list without regard to how this type of content as a whole is organized strikes me as bureaucratic instead; this forum is simply not a good one for making such decisions that affect lots of articles, because AFDs are binary in outcome and tend to be myopic in what is considered. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your level-headed response and will simply agree to disagree. But I am also compelled to point out that there is a pretty large body of guidelines for list articles, many of which were cited by the nominator here with good reason. It appears that all those guidelines for the quality of list articles become pointless under this "holistic" approach toward listing and categorizing things. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this list is defensible without recourse to the category system, as per Technopat below. I may not have gone out of my way to contribute to it, but I certainly see no compelling reason to delete indexes of articles on notable albums by their shared recording locations, especially when that studio is itself notable. There is no requirement that lists be limited to "hugely notable distinctions", "exclusive clubs" or "exclusive honors". postdlf (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doomsdayer520. I'm also thinking of nominating Category:Albums by recording location and its ilk for deletion as well as WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that should happen first, since categories have stricter standards than lists and there's a comprehensive structure. postdlf (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have nominated Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios as a test case. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated in the other AfD, Redirect to Abbey Road Studios. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with nom. that this is WP:RAWDATA. Alex-h (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As creator of the list back in 2007, I specifically stated then that it was aimed at relieving "the main article page [...] of what is, in some cases, just PR hype for various artists who happen to have recorded there." This was the version of "Abbey Road" at that time. The fact that the current version, many years later, is very similar to that same PR-use of Wikipedia that I tried to pre-empt is but a sad reflection and suggests that more effort needs to be put into ensuring Wp articles are encyclopaedic rather than simply eliminating these here pesky lists (which, in themselves, are pretty harmless and certainly more “objective” and, therefore, less subject to PR-related creativity than many "encyclopaedic" articles).
As for this specific AfD, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the nominator’s final statement that the list does not meet any of the three purposes listed at WP:LISTPURP:
“Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.” Comment: The list is structured chronologically.
“Navigation: Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia… If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles…”. Comment: “... which in turn lead to… which in turn lead to related articles...”
“Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors,…”. Comment: This list is “optimized for readers…”
My understanding, as per my comments above, is that this list fully complies with each of the purposes. If I’m mistaken, please explain why this “list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP”.
Likewise, the nominator’s statement that “Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio”; that’s evident. But the idea is that the list is made up of those recordings considered sufficiently notable to have a dedicated article at Wikipedia, which I consider a rule of thumb observed for many, if not most lists.
Regarding the statement that it is an “indiscriminate collection of info”, as the title very clearly states: this list is very specific (which means “not indiscriminate”). Any possible “indiscriminate” use that may stem from the fact that it is obviously open to future incorporations and/or items lacking. A “criticism” or, rather, fact easily applicable to just about any article at Wp, not to mention many of the lists here. The phrase “nothing is written in stone”, one of the great advantages to the whole Wikipedia “experience”, springs so easily to mind here.
As for the statement “there seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor”, where is any “exclusive honor” implied or stated in this list? If a recording is considered notable enough to be included here at Wikipedia, why should it not be included in a list? I really find it hard to be more factual/objective than providing a simple list, in this case, chronological, for simplicity.
I could continue answering more of the objections to keeping this list, but I fear I’ve used up more than my fair share of the space here, so will sign off here. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Aschbacher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The references do not show significant coverage in independent and "reliable" sources. The content is written in a promotional manner and is not of any encyclopedic value. Teemu.cod (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the probable new head of the entire European Space Agency [1] [2] is notable ex officio (and probably also via WP:PROF#C6). His honorary membership in European Academy of Sciences and Arts also suggests the possibility of WP:PROF#C3, and his citation counts, while not strong, are borderline for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein's excellent points above on the PROF criteria. He also plausibly passes GNG, google news has several pages of results though I did not assess the quality of those.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Setreis (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It can also be noted that the nominator's only edits concern attempts to delete this biography. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Malik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

famous for winning one contest only? no sustained notability either. -- RZuo (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:BLP1E seems to apply here. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of World War II flying aces. Merge target subject to editorial judgement Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Scheufele[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor aviation biography which fails WP:GNG. The article has been practically untouched since 2016. Although there are sources to attest to ES's existence, he has received no "significant coverage". —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although he was an Ace which is generally sufficient for notability but there doesn't appear to be SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG and it lacks even the most basic biographical details. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are a few sentences of coverage here and here, there's nothing resembling GNG that I can locate. Should be merged to List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces where he doesn't currently have an entry.(t · c) buidhe 16:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jagdgeschwader 5 and encourage research using the sources for that article to find additional details.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron:, please see WP:NOEFFORT - "practically untouched since 2016" is not a reason to delete an article. There's plenty of reasons this shouldn't be an article but this isn't one of them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, nice to you practising WP:AGF. I am aware that it is not a consideration but think it is still interesting context in this discussion. This is why I wrote: "Although there are sources to attest to ES's existence, he has received no "significant coverage". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmari[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Melmann 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only thing I found that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT is this. Everything else is trade publications, announcements, or brief mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNMall41. Even that one Ebony source is questionable in its notable quality; half of the content is comprised of direct quotes from the company's founder and an RT op-ed program. Brief search found nothing else that's notable. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 21:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Can't find any notability here. Kolma8 (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Min-hu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lee Min-hu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. He gets some coverage for a controversial decision that he made in a game between Thailand and Malaysia [3] [4] [5] [6]. If you search for long enough, you will find some offensive blog posts about him. Still, it's not enough for him to warrant an article here. I have searched "イ・ミンフ" and "李泯厚", as these are the only other versions of his name that I can find, and these searches amounted to nothing. Spiderone 17:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any claims in the article for notability. My search did not find any, but it looks like the Nom did a better search then I did and did not find anything either. Jeepday (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ketcham Travis House[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Appears to be written by someone with a COI. Article written around the time the owner was trying to get it listed on the NRHP. Nothing in the article about the house is sourced, except for one Bloomington newspaper article. The rest of the sources are about background info on the original owner/builder John Ketcham (Indiana) and were probably copied from that article. Searching finds mostly WP mirrors. MB 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MB 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MB 17:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleter per nom, article written by a single topic editor with the same surname as the owner, seemingly with the wrong intentions. There's no suggestion why the house could be notable, apart from the one 1985 newspaper article. Sionk (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this fails GNG and NBUILD Spiderone 18:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I'm a fan of old historic houses and this one is just not notable. In fact, in Monroe County, Indiana, there are "many early two-story brick houses," at least five of which are notable enough for mention, but not this one.^[1]

^ Cromine, Alice (1979). Restored Towns and Historic Districts of America. E.P. Dutton. p. 164. ISBN 0876902875.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Evans Clark[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

more sock spam about a non-notable (perhaps too soon) creative professional who lacks coverage in actual independent reliable sources. About half are black hat SEO (like VoyageLA), interviews which lack any oversight or independence and passing mentions, if at all. Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a google search and found many other sources. In addition, his movie list is incomplete and I will try to update and improve this page. He meets WP:GNG notability by having significant news coverage and several roles in well known TV networks, such as E! Entertainment, Lifetime, etc. Also some of his text sounds promotional and unreferenced, but I will also try to revise. I also discovered that he is a singer with albums on Amazon. Already added that he is a singer.Peter303x (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the reliable sources you've found? Having roles and albums doesn't mean he is notable. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi! I really saw several seasons of Women of Wrestling and I was a fan of Tyrone, better known as Papua New Guinea Warrior, I was browsing wikipedia and I really find this, that man continues to act and is even a dancer, I added his participation on the Women of Wrestling page from Wikipedia even. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. He has a lot ahead of him! Thank you. Tomyy27 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Tomyy27Tomyy27 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear to have played some minor roles in major productions (vice versa), no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO and lack significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 07:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the music in and it now satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. User: Pbhuvanesh94 (talk)
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article subject may be notable in the future; at present, there isn't significant coverage in independent, neutral, reliable sources. For more details on the source problems, see the talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with no objection to draftifiction with a requirement that notability be made clear before moving back to mainspace. Thank you BlackcurrantTea for the research you put in and the results posted on the talk page, and for the cleanup/trimming to the article itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Browsed the web and noticed that he has incredible sources. He fits WP:GNG notability criteria by having reliable coverage significant coverage. WEPrism222 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)— WEPrism222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Google News search has no reliable sources. Closest thing to a reliable source in the article is two local TV station references. Only problem is the content is the exact same "interview" by a PR firm. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yes; there is a lot of PR Press on him, but there are also a few articles on him about different things including the death of his 2-year-old brother Carl.. I feel this helps improve the article WP:GNG tremendously...https://www.newspapers.com/clip/65292458/the-south-bend-tribune-11-jan-1995/.MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER[reply]
- Like the other relatively reliable sources in the article, that story mentions him once: "The couple has two other children, 5-year-old Victor and 7-year-old Tyrone, who were both in school when the fire started". Mentions are not the significant coverage required for notability. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IMDB lists "21 wins and 8 nominations", given most of them are non-major awards, but still. We have some articles like this Regina Palian (which I am nominating for deletion), so Mr. Clark meets WP:GNG, maybe trimming/improving the article will help. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zentner, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos show what looks like a small railroad spur. Not finding much on Google Books or newspapers.com besides last names and mentions of the Levy-Zentner company. No evidence this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer carelessly misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality, 3.5 east-northeast of McFarland along Southern Pacific Railroad", not that it is a community, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 23:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For the same reason as all of these other mass-produced articles - GNIS isn't reliable, Durham has been wrongly cited, fails WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. and above, not properly sourced. Alex-h (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG and any other applicable guideline Spiderone 14:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Manigbas Elementary School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. Sources in the article are directory style listings. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage in local news, the type all schools would receive in local news. This is a normal school with local news coverage, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:INHERIT, not all elementary schools are notable. Barely found any source about it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually no elementary schools are notable. There is nothing that suggests that this is an exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and because I have already merged essentially all of the content and citations. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acebedo, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos show a single building, which aerials (and GMaps) show to be a ranch, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Newspapers.com turned up a hit about the Acebedo place, and that's about it beyond last names. Some Acebedos were said to live at the Old Stoker Place, possibly connection to the nearby natural features around this supposed place named for Stoker? Hog Farm _Bacon 16:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND too Spiderone 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON Missvain (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJEFF[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already been tagged for numerous writing problems, and the person who created it took the time to find a lot of "sources". The problem is that most of them are faulty. Many are event announcements in which the DJ is listed briefly as being present, some are about his larger music scene in which he is again listed briefly (or not at all), some are about people he collaborated with, and several are typical self-created listings at directory sites and streaming services. He seems to be a pretty good self promoter but I can find no significant and reliable coverage that is specifically about him in order to qualify for musical notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - it is almost completely promotional rarely specifies his importance. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is too promotional , very promotional , however Notability is possible if the source confirming - ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS - is Wikipedia relieble source, ^[1]^[2] according to the source , he Won Angola Music Awards . Samat lib (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but i dont know if the sources are relieble , NORMALLY IT SEEMS NOT Samat lib (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - See requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN, about major awards. The sources you found are brief social media announcements probably reprinted from press releases, so they are not reliable sources. Meanwhile, I don't think Angola Music Awards is a major ceremony because it seems not to get any media notice beyond its own website and social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Name dropping here and there, few vague announcements, and literally nothing more. In no way is notability per GNG, BASIC, ENT or MUSICBIO satisfied. This is just a blatant promotional article for a non notable individual at the moment. I wish him goodluck in his career but at the moment, he isn't notable. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after more verification , ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS is a Major Awards it passes requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN , ^[3]^[4] Samat lib (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Best Afro-House/Dance – "Mwangolé" Djeff Afrozila .. winner 2014 Samat lib (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Notability found , it passaes WP:NMUSICIAN but the article need to be fix , is too promotional , base on our Notable Wikipedia , ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS is the only Major Awards ^[5] that exist in Angola ... there is NO orther , as long as ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS , is NOTABLE and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN wish says that the person could be notable if they won a major award. and every independent country has is own Major music Awards - if this awards is not recognised , then what else when it comes to music Entertainment in Angola , there is NO orther major Award ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] Samat lib (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN says that the person could be notable if they won a major award. Therefore we must determine if the Angola Music Awards are a major and notable ceremony. This awards ceremony has no significant media coverage of its own, not even in Angola's media, and is only visible in its own social media sites or other minor chatter. The sources listed above are more of the same, as are most of the sources used at the ceremony's WP article. When DJEFF won that award, there was no reliable media coverage of his victory, the award itself, or he himself. Therefore it's not a major award under the cited requirement. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment base on our Notable Wikipedia , ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS is the only Major Awards ^[11] that exist in Angola ... there is NO orther , as long as ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS , is NOTABLE and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN wish says that the person could be notable if they won a major award. Samat lib (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply every independent country has is own Major music Awards - if this awards is not recognised , then what else when it comes to music Entertainment in Angola , there is NO orther major Award ^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]

Comment base on our Notable Wikipedia , as long as ANGOLA MUSIC AWARDS , is NOTABLE and relevant ; he passes Requirement #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN Samat lib (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Kolma8 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given that this is a dairying region, it seems as likely it was named for the cow. But at any rate, topos show this to be another rail spot, largely ignored for some decades until J. D. Heiskell dropped a big mill at the site. Some topos show a similarly large building, presumably a warehouse. What they don't show is a town: the area is farmland, and while there was a post office here for a while, that doesn't make a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-producer carelessly misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality [p.1493: "A place that has past or present cultural associations."], 9 miles north-northwest of Corcoran along Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad...The name is for James Guernsey, who owned land at the place." not that it is a notable community, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding many hits for this as a referenced place name via newspapers.com. 2 deaths "near Guernesey, California, locality referenced, locality referenced, locality referenced, locality referenced, and there are dozens more. For this and others unincorporated places in the same position it might be better to redirect to the county article or create a "List of unincorporated places" to point towards. Killiondude (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it is listed at Kings_County,_California#Unincorporated_communities and List of places in California (G). Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, you are agreeing that this should redirect? Killiondude (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm fine with redirects in the case of most of these places. Reywas92^Talk 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fine with a redirect. We really have nothing to say about this other than it's a spot on the map; making a list of spots without the only important info (the coords) isn't helping anyone. We do not need to try to intercept every Google search. Mangoe (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also the mention in Kings County, California which claims it's an unincorporated community is unsourced, and if there's no reliable source available then it should be removed as unverifiable. Hut 8.5 19:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It had a post office. I know that most (all?) editors don't agree with me that having a post office constitutes legal recognition, so please don't let this weak keep prevent deletion or merging. However, Killiondude's newspapers.com references are trivial, so this locale is lacking non-trivial coverage. GBooks indicates that Guernesey did have a library and there was a rail station, Gudde states that it first appeared on a railway map in 1902. I agree that people lived there, I'm just not seeing any form of notability yet. I'd like to see an article about the place, not a bunch of passing, trival references. Cxbrx (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this any different than every other town in the USA that has both a post office and a train stop? Fails WP:GNG. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V if we want to have an article on a current or former settlement then we need to have a reliable source which says it's a current or former settlement. The GNIS is cited for this but it's not reliable. We can't infer the existence of a settlement from the fact that it had a library, or a station, or that it's mentioned as a place in newspapers - that's original research. Even if it is or was a community where people lived WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and I don't see any evidence this is or was legally recognised. If it has never been legally recognised then it has to pass the WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.5 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Hut, fails GNG and NGEO. The article does receive some views (~400 over a year prior to AfD), no objection to Redirect if there is a consensus. // Timothy :: talk 15:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have participated in the Casals Festival[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the exact same reasons as at List of artists who have recorded at PatchWerk Recording Studios and List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall; this is WP:RAWDATA; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory of every band or singer that has played at any particular festival. There is no evidence that playing at this festival is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many artists have played here. Some of them are notable. Some of them less so. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. This list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP and as User:Doomsdayer520 said on a previous AfD, this is grouping people together for a reason that is not notable.

In my opinion, for a list like this to be worthy of inclusion, it would need to be something truly notable and exclusive like winning a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award; something in that sort of tier. Otherwise, we just end up with a ludicrously broad list of musicians with only a trivial connection. Spiderone 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom . A list of meaninless data , with No significant point Samat lib (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whilst not a criterion for deletion, I chose 25 articles at random from this list. Only two (!) of them actually mentioned the Casals Festival in the article and, in both cases, it was only mentioned once. This strongly implies that participating in the Casals Festival is not a career-defining moment for the majority of these artists. Spiderone 19:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need to create seperate articles for this. If it is notable enough it can be included in the main article on the festival.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone. As a former failed cellist myself, I know that a festival like this is a goal, but its sheer volume of listings means it's not defining. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, these lists have serve no real purpose JayJay^{What did I do?} 09:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrassah Tahfeezul Quran[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No hits on Google except wiki-type sites that probably mirrored the info from WP. The name brings up a lot of false positives (I think it means something like, "prayer practice"). I browsed Guyanese/Caribbean Islamic org websites (like CIOG or GITGY) for school listings, and also nothing. It could be a non-notable program within a school/mosque, but I couldn't find any clues for possible redirects. The "peacock pose" deleted from an early version makes me think if it DID exist that it's done and gone before they could even make a proper social media account.

I don't have easy access to the academic pay-sites, nor Arabic skills to see if it's of specific interest to the Muslim world- I'm happy to fix it up if there's anything, but I think this 10 year old orphan article with zero refs doesn't have much going for it. Estheim (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any claims in the article nor does google show me anything that meets WP:NSCHOOL. Jeepday (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is long past the time when we should scrap all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and my own standards for schools. There is no good target to which I would merge. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no. No claims for WP:NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Alford[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Had a go saving, but now likely to be deleted. SethWhales^talk 22:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too couldn’t find sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both the notability guidelines for writers and GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham O'Keeffe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I searched his name in connection with the three clubs that he played for; there is no evidence that he played elsewhere as per this. Every single piece of coverage was trivial [7] [8] [9]. There is a rugby league player of the same name but he is clearly a different person. A search on ProQuest revealed more trivial mentions but nothing more. Spiderone 12:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of expatriate Afghan football clubs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list with no evidence of notability. There is no evidence that this group of clubs has been discussed at length by reliable sources. This list has no navigational purpose as it has only one notable entry. The listing of external links to the club websites also makes this a borderline case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As per WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Spiderone 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. I've certainly never heard of this as a phenomenon in the same way as e.g. Croatian or Greek expatriate sports clubs in USA, Canada and Australia etc. Giant Snowman 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:LISTN, does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. Article itself is a list of redlinks, with a few EL's that do not meet WP:EL, Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no indication this would meet CLN/AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 19:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded at Abbey Road Studios[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the exact same reasons as at List of artists who have recorded at PatchWerk Recording Studios and List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall; this is WP:RAWDATA; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory of every band or singer that has recorded at any particular studio. There is no evidence that recording at this particular studio is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many artists have recorded here. Some of them are notable. Some of them less so. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. This list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP and as User:Doomsdayer520 said on a previous AfD, this is grouping people together for a reason that is not notable. Spiderone 11:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abbey Road Studios - Perhaps we could have a sentence which states "Several notable artists, such as [...] have recorded at the studio." Foxnpichu (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Simply way too many clients at Abby Road makes nothing especially unique about recording there. I like the suggestion above to have a section on the Abby Road page that acknowledges select notable artists associated with the place. (Without even checking, I wouldn't be surprised if such an entry is already there.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. There is kind of one in the 1950s-1970s section, but only specifically for producers and sound engineers. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that someone else will cite policies that allow the inclusion of lists like this, but I am the anti-clutter type and will second the policies cited by the nominator. There seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor, as if you have to be invited by the Queen or something. But this list proves that the studio is a business and if someone pays then they're in. Walking in the door is not notable, what matters is the album that you record there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer520. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing unique about this studio. Also, List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be added to this AfD, it's even more of an indiscriminate collection of info than this list is. Username 6892 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Username6892: because this AfD is already under way and because the topics are (only slightly) different, I thought it would be best to nominate it for AfD separately, it can be found here. Thanks. Spiderone 20:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the nominators reasoning. Peter303x (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William M. John[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, WP:AUTHOR - The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I expanded the article to include 3 more reliable sources. Notably, John was an early winner of the prestigious O. Henry Award, was an early member of the Colorado Authors' League, and established a scholarship foundation that continues to this day. I linked to the NYT once on John's article, but he's mentioned at least two other times. 1. 2. Likely, these should be included in the article as well, but I'm unsure of how to incorporate them given that their content is behind a paywall. Likewise, his novel Seven Women gets mentioned in multiple sources, such as this journal and ~~this newspaper.~~ I'm not entirely certain of the best way to incorporate these things, but they undoubtably help establish notability. When factoring in the four sources I mentioned here, the three sources I recently added, and the three sources I originally featured, that's a total of 10 credible sources mentioning Mr. John. ThrillShow (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup to my earlier comment: I've continued expanding the entry for John. The newspaper article I linked above (which is now crossed out) probably isn't super relevant. However, I've found numerous other reliable sources along the way. I've now included 5 published reviews of his work. Thanks to your input, I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. ThrillShow (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#4. Seven Women is a notable book (at least four reviews out there, per ThrillShow's great work) and he won the O. Henry Award in 1930. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, above editors have said it all, o'henry (joint) winner tips John into wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manteo Cemetery[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a cemetery. There are no refs and a google search doesn't return anything that makes me think it is worthy of inclusion. The article makes no claim of notability, nobody there was famous and nothing noteworthy happened. The website for this local municipal cemetery also seems to say nothing noteworthy happened there. Link to official website Desertarun (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cemetaries are not notable just because they exist. That is the only standard that would make this one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cemeteries are not inherently notable; this one doesn't look like it would pass WP:GNG. I also think that listing people buried there is bordering on WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Spiderone 17:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Vellore[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability: sources in article are not about the school (and most aren't independent), and I couldn't find good other sources beyond some routine coverage. Fram (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree about the state of sourcing in the article. I couldn't find anything about in a search either. Except a few trivial name drops in news articles. There's nothing that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 13:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above --UserNL2020 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests or even tries to claim notability of any type or to any degree. The sources only support the statement about the 7DA education system being big, which is hardly relevant. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We used to accept that most secondary/high schools were notable, becasue it was difficult to prevent pupils writing about their own school. On that basis the article would survive, but all we have here is a stub saying that it exists!. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a problem with the notability requirements for schools. I've seen notability tags removed purely on the basis of the subject being a secondary school; I've seen the opposite argument, that schools aren't inherently notable and need to satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG. My reading of WP:NSCHOOL is that the latter is true, but the situation is far from clear, and the guidelines aren't being applied or enforced consistently. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not meet any reasonable notability requirements. A few years ago we decided the view that every existing secondary school was notable was created without understanding the truly huge number of secondary schools there are and how truly lacking in sources some are. Nothing justifies keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage in independent sources and failing my own standards. It's part of a large church network but there's no good target article to which I would merge. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Impru has a number of related example AFD and more can be found here. The one upcoming election in a country does not violate crystal and can contain sourced information about what is known. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next New Zealand general election[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly WP:CRYSTAL . Page is about a undefined and unspecific future event - The detail in the article does not relate to that event - no one knows what that detail will be until it happens closer to its due date in three years time. An article will be created for the next election but it will be specific and have detail and references appropriate for the specific event not the current mishmash copied from somewhere. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy keep. It's customary practice in Wikipedia to create articles for next elections whenever there is information available for them, and in this case there is (i.e. opinion polling). The article passes WP:CRYSTAL, because of it being a notable event that is almost certain to take place (unless you crystal-ball yourself another unlikely, cataclismic event that prevents the election from being held at all); because all of the information sourced within the article being verifiable; and because no attempt is being made at predicting or presuming the future. It would be like arguing that 2024 United States presidential election goes against CRYSTAL because of it being four years away in time, despite it being explicitly shown as one example of what WP:CRYSTAL is not. There is even a specific naming convention explicitly regulating such articles: For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election.

Also note that this is not the first case of a "next" election article being proposed for AfD: past precedent shows that these are typically kept because of the aforementioned reasons: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. It should (and likely will) end up the same way here. Impru20^talk 09:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rather wait until the election is being discussed and create a spcific dated page at that point namedl 2023 New Zealand general election. If this was notible now there would be reliable sources discussing it there isn't at least not within the current article. The article currently lists parties and individuals and it is purely crystal ball gazing to assume this detail has anything to do with the next election. The event is currenly unplanned with no date so does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Andrewgprout (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nominator. You can't post a separate delete !vote, since it's assumed your nomination counts as such. Plus, you have not even cared to refute any of the evidence that I (or Number 57 for that matter) presented against your case, nor seem to provide a clear reasoning as to why this article constitutes CRYSTAL other than "the event is currently unplanned" or that it is "not dated", which shows a misconception on how CRYSTAL actually works (the policy explicitly states that Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. It means that you can create articles on foreseeable future events that are notable and almost certain to take place. It's not an entitlement to delete an article on a future event just because the exact date is not yet determined. Please care to read the policy before building an argument out of that).

Alternatively, you hint at us somehow needing to wait until 2023 for this article to be created, entirely ruling out the perfectly legal possibility of a snap election taking place at some point earlier on. Overall, it's your nomination the one that seems based on speculation, assumptions and crystal-balled material.

As per the above and considering the exposed arguments, I'm changing my !vote to "speedy keep" under WP:SKCRIT#3. Impru20^talk 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Standard practice to have 'next election' articles. See Next United Kingdom general election, Next Spanish general election, Next Italian general election, Next Japanese general election, Next Australian federal election. Opinion polling is already available for the election, so there is information specific to it available. WP:Trout for the nomination and a double trout for doubling down on it and (incorrectly) adding a 'delete' vote after Impru comprehensively dismantled their case. Number 57 13:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Trout also for thinking the correct course of action here was ctrl+a backspace. Nixinova T C 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well within the remit of WP:CRYSTAL and standard practice. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obviously. This is standard practice for elections. Googling "2023 New Zealand election" brings up quite a few articles of post-election analysis by media and what the stakes might be in 3 years time. Everything is sourced and the only CRYSTAL is the nominator thinking somehow there won't be a "next" election. Nixinova T C 19:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is standard practice for future elections (e.g. the American 2024 elections which are even further into the future). As an upcoming election it is already being polled. The procedure for settling the date and conduct of the election is established relevant information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep <edit conflict> Classic case of a train wreck nomination. I've waited till now as I had expected that the nominator will withdraw this, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Afd isn't cleanup. Of course this is a notable event. The only thing that we don't know is when the election will be held, hence "Next" in the article name. Schwede 66 20:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and Whale per standard practice. ser! (let's discuss it). 20:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Mackintosh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Politician who stood in national elections but was never elected, also a QC, but nothing to indicate enough notability. The page was a redirect for 10 years before being resurrected earlier this year. John Womble (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. John Womble (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. John Womble (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. John Womble (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't seem to find any significant coverage, so appears to fail GNG and BIO. The only real independent coverage is the "lawyer of the week" article, but that is not significant. I'd be open to the previous redirect if someone can show me that it had some utility. Deus et lex (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not think his political career meets notability requirements. He came very close to being elected as an MP in 2010 (and if I recall many political pundits tipped him to gain Edinburgh South for the Liberal Democrats), but that in itself does not make him notable, nor does his service as a councillor. Dunarc (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding office, not just running for it — but this neither demonstrates nor sources any strong evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and also fails to demonstrate a credible reason why his candidacy might have been more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1150 K Street[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An apartment building that does not meet WP:GNG, lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:GEOFEAT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." so it does not meet WP:NBUILDING criteria for buildings. Searching Newspapers.com for 1150 K Street found nothing. GBooks returns a couple of trivial hits, one for a work of fiction, the other for a lobbying organization. My guess is that this article was added because the building was listed in the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C.. However, the citation supporting the height of this building is not a WP:RS source. Just because there is a website that states that the building is of a certain height that make it one of two buildings that are the 17th tallest in the city does not confer notability. Other buildings listed in List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. should probably be reviewed for notability. The Watergate Hotel, this ain't. Cxbrx (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blueprint (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, cannot find any indication of notability. Fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even close to meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Have they started recording their second album yet? Spiderone 10:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in full agreement with Spiderone. This band has been active since 2000 but I haven't found anything reliable. It is not helping that they have an incredibly bland name which makes searching difficult, so I searched with the albums, and I couldn't find anything that indicates even the slightest notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Created by SPA editor possibly for promotional purpose. A search is complicated by there being another band--also un-notable--with the same name. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails pretty much everything. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valmont Academy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable school or relevant in any way.--UserNL2020 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article isn't referenced I couldn't find anything about it when I looked except for a few trivial articles about things like one of their sports teams Facetiming a celebrity. There's a name drop in a book also, but nothing that is in-depth or that addresses the school directly and in detail. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is long past time we immediately scapped all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another small school that fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm just deleting the one that's nominated, as the others suggested do not have AfD notices posted. A proper group nomination is probably in order here. – bradv🍁 07:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinsmores, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one was brought up back in the 2009 discussion that originally questioned the mass-production of CA places. Although the original version of "unincorporated community" was soon changed to "locality" per Durham, GMaps doesn't show much of interest, and the topo suggests the Dinsmore family lived there (top left), labeled in the same font as "Ridge Cabin" to the east and "Deer Creek Ranch" to the south. Newspaper results are about Dinsmore, California, so it's unclear how this site is notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think at this point we can simply call WP:TNT on all of Carlossuarez46's 2009 California articles which are referenced only to GNIS/Durham. The essence of a TNT situation is: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links". This is clearly that kind of situation - these articles exist, which dissuades anyone from creating them in better form, but they are also garbage, with probably at most 1-in-20 being a WP:GEOLAND pass and then only with detailed research for each one of those 20. GNIS is a bad source, and Durham may be a good source but it has not been cited correctly whenever it has been checked (i.e., the locales it is being referenced for aren't communities that were ever inhabited). Much better for the project to delete all and then recreate the ones that can be recreated. Reywas92, Cxbrx,Hog Farm, Mangoe (users pinged as they have all recently contributed in AFDs involving California locales only sourced to GNIS/Durham) - I would support simply adding all of these California location articles that are cited only to GNIS/Durham and TNTing them in one go rather than separately PROD/AFD for each one. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a quick review of the articles listed at Category:Former populated places in California that are cited only to Durham/GNIS and which do not mention a post-office, I propose also:

18 Mile House, California
Abbato, California
Abbott House, California
Achois, California
Acuragna, California
Agatha, California
Ahapchingas, California
Alamo Bonito, California
Alcant, California
Algodon, California
Allard, California
Alpine (former settlement), California
Amador Crossing, California
Andover, California
Andrews, California
Appleton, California
Araz, California
Arctic, California
Argentine, California
Arkansas Ferry, California
Armstrong's Mill, California
Artwell, California
Arundel, California
Ash, California
Astakiwi, California

....and this is just the "A"s FOARP (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Soda Spring, California
Balaklava, California
Bald Eagle, California
Baltimore, California
Banner, Kings County, California
Barkerville, California
Barnes Settlement, California
Bartons House, California
Beal, California (avowedly just a train station with no WP:GNG, just bare mentions)
Bean, California
Bear River Pines, California (one additional source on top of Durham/GNIS, but this is a county register of place names with no data beyond that on GNIS)
Bear Valley, Nevada County, California (one additional source that cites GNIS)
Beckmans Flat, California
Bellevue, California
Bells Bar, California
Bender, California
Berteleda, California
Bidwell, California
Big Blue Mill, California
Big Ripples, California
Birch, California
Blinzing, California
Bliss, California
Blue Bluffs, California
Bokea, California
Bontes, California
Brighton House, California
Britona, California
Brock Creek, California
Bronge, California
Brownsville, Calaveras County, California
Bryan, California
Bryant, Humboldt County, California
Buchanan, Madera County, California
Buldam, California
Bullards Bar, California
Burchell, California
Burkeville, California
Burks Bar, California
Butler, California
Butte Creek, California

....and now the Bs. All of the above are cited to ultimately to GNIS/Durham, except Beal, California as noted. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caldwell, California
Caleb, California
California House, California
Cambio, California
Camp 4 Flat, California
Camp 19, California
Camp Pendola, Yuba County, California
Camp Spaulding, California
Camp Union, California
Canebrake (former town), California (This "former town" is literally within the town limits of the existing town of Canebrake)
Canfield, California
Canton, California
Cape Cod Bar, California
Cape Horn Bar, California
Carbon, California
Carthage, California (Another "former town" that appears just to be the name of the existing town written differently)
Cascade Diggings, California
Cedar Kress, California
Center Ville, California
Ceres Flat, California
Champion, California
Chandler, California
Chaparral Hill, California
Chases, California
Chicken Flat, California
Chili Bar, California
China Gulch, California
Chinatown, Amador County, California
Christine Junction, California
Cincinnati, California
Clayton, Los Angeles County, California
Clear Creek, Butte County, California
Clearbrook, California
Colbys Landing, California
Collins, Fresno County, California
Colorado, California
Concepcíon, California
Coombs, California
Copper Hill, California
Copperfield, California
Cordua Bar, California
Cornwell, California
~~Coso (former settlement), California (haven't we already had this place before?)~~
Crittendon, California
Crouch, California
Crow, California
Crystal Springs, California
Cucamonga (former settlement), California
Cuneo, California
Curtis, Yolo County, California

...and that's the Cs down. Seriously, at some point in the process of creating ~2 times more articles for ghost towns in California than there are for currently-inhabited places the realisation that California just doesn't have that many ghost towns should have dawned. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daby's Ferry, California
Dapishul, California
Darwin, Fresno County, California
Dathol, California
David, California
Deadwood, Siskiyou County, California (one other source but just gives etymology for the slang-word "deadwood" and doesn't relate to actual topic)
Dedrick, California (one other source but its a user-created-content website and even that just references something someone else says)
Delaney, California
Dellavan, California
Denco, California
Dentens, California
Depot Hill, California
Deseret, California (one other source but its a pronunciation guide for the word "Deseret")
Desert Relief, California
Dew Drop, Amador County, California
Diamond Creek, California
Dickenson, California
Dickerson, California
Diggers Bar, California
Dillon, California
Dredge, California
Drum, Nevada County, California
Dufftown, California
Dunlap, Mendocino County, California

....that's the Ds down. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I compared the above list with the CA list in ghosttowns.com, which it appears that you did too, because you found Dedrick. I found no other matches between the above list and ghosttowns.com.

I think reasonable criteria for WP:TNT would be articles articles with the following characteristics:

Have only a Durham citation and do not appear in GNIS and do not appear in ghosttowns.com. These are almost certainly not notable.
Have only Durham and GNIS citations and do not appear in ghosttowns.com. These are probably not notable.

In the above list, I'd like to keep Coso (former settlement), California because I found a reference (which I just added) that includes a bit of text and some photos. As this Coso is on China Lake Naval Weapons Station, it is not likely to have much modern coverage. This Coso is possibly not notable, but should probably be considered separately. Cxbrx (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cxbrx very happy to strike Coso from the list. I think it's likely a duplicate of Coso Junction, California, which is also next to China Lake and used to be called Coso, but like you say that can be discussed separately. I believe every other one of the above list meets your TNT criteria (the only additional sources are clearly non-relevant - eg the pronunciation guide for Deseret - or duplicates of GNIS data). FOARP (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coso (former settlement), California and Coso Junction, California are two separate locations. Coso Junction, California is probably not notable. I'm not sure about Coso (former settlement), California. Cxbrx (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Soft delete all Checking these in Durham's California's Geographic Names that I just got a copy of, there is clearly widespread misrepresentation of the source going on. For Darwin, California, the cited p. 1096 has under the entry for Reedley: "California Mining Bureau's (1917a) map shows a place called Darwin located along the railroad..." and that's it. Cordua Bar, California's source under the Timbuctoo entry on page 568 says "Cordua Bar, named in 1848 for Theodore Cordua, who kept a trading post there, was on the north bank of of Yuba River." On what basis is this "a former mining town" or notable? Blinzing, California is actually "Blinzig" in Durham, which calls it a "locality", and says "From 1909 until 1912 this place was a railroad siding that served Camp Enjoyment..." This was misrepresented as "its railroad station served..." It did not have a station, it was the station, as the topo (using "Blinzig") makes clear! Look, if there are substantive sources that describe these places as actual, notable communities not just names on maps they are welcome to be recreated, but this distortion of what the source says is widespread and must be more efficiently addressed. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to [10], Deseret, California, Dedrick, California, Bullards Bar, California, Buchanan, Madera County, California. Butte Creek, California also had a post office, but Helltown, California is also known as Butte Creek, so I'm not sure what to do there. Unless we get non-trivial coverage for these locations with post offices, I certainly would not stand in the way of deletion of them. About Blinzig vs Blinzing, I see that Blinzig has no GNIS entry, but Blinzing does, so perhaps Durham has a typo? Searching Gudde will take some time, but I doubt if there is non-trivial coverage there. Cxbrx (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No the typo is in GNIS, the topos say Blinzig. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Durham-only entries excluding the ghosttown.com cases. I haven't worked much with the former populated places, but when I have, the ones I have done sourced only to Durham have universally turned out to be a frustrating waste of time to attempt to verify. And even for real settlements, listing in a single omnium gatherum work just does not satisfy WP:GNG, and that's before the recent revelation that Durham's classification has been consistently misrepresented and that most of these are just place names that aren't even on a map. As far as the GNIS-and-Durham former settlements, I cannot offer my support on this group, having done vanishingly few of these, but I wouldn't oppose a TNT deletion of them as well. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles that FOARP suggests. This is to onerous to deal with case-by-case when the majority to all of the articles are actively spreading disinformation. Any sufficiently significant locations could be refunded on request by an editor other than Carlossuarez46. — Bilorv (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sloppily created and if something falls through the cracks, it's an easy enough thing to reverse. The alternative is a monumental use of resources on a giant series of articles that should have, quite frankly, never existed.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete all - Negligent mass-creation. I've looked at a lot of these over the last month, and the vast majority of those citing just GNIS, Durham, or both are generally non-community rubbish. Anything that turns out to be significant can be recreated. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. R. Scammell Academy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable school or relevant in any way.--UserNL2020 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I could find there's some trivial mentions in stuff about other things, but nothing that addresses the school directly and in-depth. So, the article fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should not have articles sourced only to the subject's webpage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable fiction character with no evidence of notability. The sources confirm the existence but not that the subject is notable. GSS ^💬 07:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources for this article to EXIST, though you may argue that it may not have enough sources for Verification. This article must NOT be deleted and it will be improved, more sources will be collected in the near future.

Ghanada is one of the biggest literary character of the Indian Sub-Continent. This article MUST STAY.--Suborno Sabbir (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-10 ✗ PROD

Should not be deleted. Ghanada is a wonderful character of Bengali children literature as mentioned in the book Children's Literature in Indian Languages (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Children_s_Literature_in_Indian_Language/KS0nDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ghanada&pg=PT40&printsec=frontcover).There is an entry of the character in Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature (https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Encyclopaedia_of_Indian_Literature/KnPoYxrRfc0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ghanada&pg=PA3889&printsec=frontcover). The article may be notable as per references. Pinakpani (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the sources cited in the article there's an in-depth analysis here, and that's just the first source that I looked at after clicking "books" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am persuaded by the arguments and sources provided in this AfD that enough sourcers WP:NEXIST to show notability. The article is pretty young, so incorporating these references over time will improve the article, and deletion is not required. -2pou (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources appear to be reliable for the subject matter. The article is well-written and informative, and based on the discussion above, there is strong feeling that this subject is notable in South Asia.--Concertmusic (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not delete. Ghanada is a very popular character in India and its subcontinents, created by Premendra Mitra, the character spawned many media franchises throughout the years. I can see the article is providing many useful information with using many reliable sites. I can provide some more links of top level news media coverages. Here is some -

Click on this to know more about Ghanada related topics. Bloody Knight Rider (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus , been at AfD for over 1 month with no discussion. May be speedily renominated (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Corsetti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by KidAd, with the rationale Fails WP:GNG. Clear WP:PROMO piece. I contested, two 'Emmy's' may make him notable. Merits an AfD discussion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-02 ✗ A3

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Today (Kenya)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Gachangi (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gachangi has been involved in significant edits and promotion of the page James Mwangi which has some recent edits (from Business Today (Kenya)) that have been used to cite sexual assault allegations against James mwangi. Sources such as this describe notability of the editor luke. Gachangi is attempting to use this afd to fight sexual assault allegations against james mwangi. As per the specific edits on James mwangi: sources are clearly reliable and in a neutral point of view. Case in point, Esther passaris who claims she was assaulted by James Mwangi gave an interview to news sites directly e.g. Tuko news and Nairobi news of nation.africa. Then there are also allegations of land grabbing which are part of the edits on James Mwangi. Business today reported a story based on actual court records. This nomination to delete business today page is not in good faith as there are clearly other sources that make this news site valid. A news website cannot honestly be making news elsewhere except the editor whose notability can clearly be established.Gachangi is using this afd to fight off sexual assault and land grabbing claims against James Mwangi that are clearly well sourced and cited by business today. Business today wrote the story based on actual court records which are valid sources on wikipedia.

--2C0F:FE38:2020:EE4A:1:2:4E75:8BCE (talk)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:FE38:2020:EE4A:1:2:4E75:8BCE (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gachangi (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Gachangi (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the site. Winning 2 awards are perhaps not enough for the page to establish notability. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep but update: blog constitutes opinion work by professional writer who is an editor with a reputation for opinion work.see 1, 2, 3 and 4 5,6. Sources 5 and 6 mention editor plus business today. As per WP:NEWSBLOG this cannot be subjected to larger news organization review process. Operation is smaller and notable to pass WP:GNG lamely specifically in cases where editor has been mentioned and business today mentioned too(although minute). Business today plus the minor mentions, the awards and the editor qualify to keep article for a blog type of operation. This is mainly because this editorial work plus minor mentions can pass for oversight and fact checking for a smaller blog operation as per WP:SOURCE. The blog is regularly updated with relevant news and has been referenced by a number of notable corporates in kenya. It wouldn't be practical for the site to be making the news in other competing news sites with larger operations.-2C0F:FE38:2324:76E:1:0:A969:264B (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability cannot be inherited from the chief editor of the website. This website cannot depend on the notability of other websites where the author is coincidentally a contributor. The awards won by the website are trivial. Gachangi (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comment. Kolma8 (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany Parish of Seattle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't make this pass WP:NORG. The given references are either self-published or ancillary coverage (about the neighborhood where the parish is, for example). Mikeblas (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) delete -- This is a relatively full article, probably because the church produced a centenary history, but it seem to be a run pf the mill local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a run of the mill local congregation, nothing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with the above. Kolma8 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provide by nom, JPL & K8. I wasn’t able to observe significant coverage following a google and google book search.Celestina007 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Jackson (model)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "2011 Huffington Post Game Changer Awards." is not enough for notability , nor is every individual model at The Battle of Versailles Fashion Show DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one long after appearing recognition is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage. Does not pass notability guidelines. I am not able to find much in Google news because her name is too common. Peter303x (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV, and just not really notable at all. Star7924 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Hill, Kentucky[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rennick's index calls it a locale, which is reserved for places where there was human activity but no signficant full-time population. Newspapers.com results are for roads and a church in Lexington, Kentucky, which is not near the supposed location of this feature. Can't really find much of anything about this supposed place, the topographic maps show the Walnut Hill name, but only some scattered buildings in a wide area. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see only the school, and after that there's no real concentration of structures or anything. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monola, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos show a railroad feature with one building that disappears when the railroad is taken up. After some searching, I was able to find this, which calls Monola a "small station". Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos show a telltale short passing siding and nothing else. The spot appears to be in the middle of a salt flat. I'd need a lot more evidence than a GNIS entry to be convinced that there was a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the many discussion we've had for similar articles created by the same author at the same time. FOARP (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly never a settlement Spiderone 14:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Shanqiti[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Until they actually see time in a game for Al-Nassr, they don't pass WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 21:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not currently meet any inclusion guideline Spiderone 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching on newspapers.com is very difficult due to the extreme commonness of this name (and the fact that there were apparently Inyo and Jay stables in Fresno at one point), but there's no GNIS entry for a Jay in Inyo County, and no feature of this name appears on the topos in the supposed location. Combined with the location on the railroad, this appears to be some sort of non-notable railroad feature. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough notability shown to have an article.--Blurz (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our many other AFDs on similar articles created by the same author at the same time. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; blatant failure of all applicable guidelines Spiderone 10:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Try improving it and then if that doesn't work, consider a merge and discuss that on the appropriate talk pages. After improved, or attempted improvement, you can always re-nominate. But, after three relists we haven't really came to any better conclusions. I appreciate you all respecting this decision and assuming good faith. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EFanzines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, no reliable sources at all. Mansheimer (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something we would desire to be able to explain, given the role it's played as a repository of culture, how it's been referred to in passing in scholarship as the place to find something, and how it's opened up the science fiction fanzine culture (see the Langford ref I added) and made it available. I've started doing some work on the sourcing; will see if I can find more. /Julle (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously undeleted (Dec 31, 2007). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-12 ✗ deleted, 2007-12 move to → User:Ghostwords/EFanzines, 2007-12 ↻ restored, 2007-12 ✗ deleted

Merge or Keep: I agree with Julle's argumentation that this topic is encyclopedic. Secondary sources have been added, so there is definitely content to WP:PRESERVE and this article should not be deleted. I am fine to keep it, but the coverage found so far is not a lot. So a merge, e.g. to (the bottom of) Fanzine#Science fiction would also be a good solution in my opinion. Daranios (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources for notability.--Blurz (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. This is a tough one... It appears that several notable works somewhat rely on this website for their distribution. There are mentions of the site all over the internet regarding where to find certain published pieces, but there isn't much (readily available, at least) describing the history of the site and its establishment, etc. Since WP:NOTINHERITED is not a policy I'm going to lean keep. Although it did not win, the Hugo nomination is significant. Locus reported that they won a FAAn award for best website in 2018 and 2017. Hard to say how significant that is, but looking into the history of it here, it looks like this site has won that award so frequently, they withdrew from the category after receiving a special recognition. It's clearly niche, but it seems pretty notable within that niche—enough so for my !vote, at least. -2pou (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namak Issk Ka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A draft for the article topic is already under development: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Namak_Issk_Ka Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Noobie anonymous (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a valid reason for AfD. Histmerge should be done between this article and the draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedily. Topic is notable and nominator does not provide a valid rationale for deletion. The draftspace version was indeed created first, but that doesn't mean that its author has "first dibs" on having their preferred version of the mainspace article in place, whatever form that may take. Note that the draft author Unknownnreasonn had previously tagged the mainspace article more than once for both speedy deletion (for reasons similar to the above, reverted because this is emphatically not a valid CSD rationale either) and for AfD (reverted because necessary followup steps were not done). All parties are reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a battleground, and that the proper course of action is to discuss possible changes or compromises on the article's talk page rather than trying to get the "other guy's" version of the article rejected outright. --Finngall ^talk 18:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and failure to satisfy television notability.
- - There are conduct issues and content issues here, but AFD is a content forum.
  - This is a future television series. It does not satisfy general notability, and does not satisfy television notability because it does not have reception information (and won't for a week).
  - The best action would be to Draftify, but there is already a draft.
  - It appears, as noted by User:Finngall, that there is a race between two editors to get credit for the article, and both editors have made a false start in the race.
  - Both editors should be warned, but this is a content forum.
  - User:Onel5969 says that a history merge is in order. That is probably true, but the history-merged page should then be in draft space until the show airs.
  - The nominator has not made a case for deletion, but there is a policy-based case why this should not be in article space until the show airs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon, Don't disagree with your rationale, however, with an air date less than 4 days away, just felt that the 7 days of the AfD would not expire before the reason to draft was no longer valid. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible to merge both drafts. I think editors can improve the article. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello All, I am the first who created the draft with AfC rules and the another one who created the article without AfC rules so I can get justice? and My Draft has more citations than the another one you can check this also. I hope I will get justice!! With regards Unknownnreasonn (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknownnreasonn: What we want is for the article to be of the highest quality possible, regardless of who is editing it. Dramadevil may have jumped the queue in this case, but in the end what matters here is encyclopedic content, not "justice". Neither you nor they "own" the article, and from what I see there are elements of your draft which can be incorporated into the mainspace version to improve it without throwing it out completely. Other editors may do this, and/or they may make their own improvements or additions. That's how Wikipedia works. Please understand and accept the advice from the more experienced editors who have taken the time to comment here, and do not hesitate to ask further questions. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk • contribs) 15:16, December 6, 2020 (UTC)

@Finngall: so it's not wrong having two copies of the same page, I want to know if merge from draft to article happen so this existing article not deleted. Am I right? I know experienced editors better know than me I just asking about this. As you say don't hesitate to ask any question so this is I'm asking, please answer. Thank you Unknownnreasonn (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknownnreasonn: There's not a lot inherently wrong with having two versions, but it's preferable to have just one. Admins can merge the histories of the two versions so that all edits to both appear on a single version of the article, so that the full history is available. --Finngall ^talk 17:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flightside[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly unnotable band. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Proposed deletion template removed by an IP without providing a reason. Related article (one of the band members), also up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Eaglesfield (2nd nomination) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It took me some time to make that decision, because their early embrace of the internet and the now faintly comic attempt to "game" the streaming charts before streaming really took off (heavens - now, it would be attempting to game the much-diminished download market), do at least give a hint of notability. But on balance I don't think these are quite enough. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full disclosure, I am Mark from the band! We had a lot of print coverage at the time in the 90s. Worked with people like Dave Stewart and Dave Grohl. It would pain me to see this go but appreciate Robin's point of view too. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide us with citations to that print coverage? It doesn't have to be online, but if there are several sources published in major music or news magazines that are available in a library or print database, the article should be retained. Chubbles (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Will have to get my old clippings out to work out exact dates. Kerrang! used to have small snippets of news in the first front pages and they would tout our gigs (around 93?) they plugged us heavily. We were featured twice in X Magazine, and did a couple of Breakout Act interviews for Melody Maker. It was never more than a page but it was constant. Did a student radio tour so should be in quite a few student mags from the time. I will look and see if I can add references over the weekend if you can give me some grace time. Thank you for being responsive! 62.31.81.43 (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom . No significant coverege on independent relieble sources, No evidence of Notability , Samat lib (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm simply not seeing enough coverage to show that this band meets WP:GNG. The current sourcing in the article is mostly unusable, and I've been unable to find anything better. The current article has 13 sources in it, which consist of:

A dead link to an MTV artist profile
A dead link to a BBC music profile
A Brunel university student newspaper, reporting on a Brunel university student band. This source is not independent of the subject and is probably not the most reliable reporting
A short interview about a project Sarah was doing in Chile. Since this was published by an official Chilean website it is likely not independent, as the project was funded by the Chilean government
A link to buy their EP on amazon
A dead link to a BBC video on the launch of the UK streaming chart, which seems to have no relation to Flightside
A random link to Deezer, no idea what it's doing there
A Facebook post that is unrelated to Flightside
A dead link to the bands own website
A dead yahoo news link, which I thought would be a useable source but appears to actually be a reprint of this paid press release from prweb.com
Musicbrainz, unreliable user generated content
Musicbrainz again
Another amazon link to buy their EP

Nothing here appears to be substantial, reliable, independent coverage. I've searched but been unable to find anything better. Since the Newspaper sources mentioned by the IP above haven't been added to the article it would appear that coverage of this band simply does not exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the IP above me. Too bad the newspaper sources haven't been added, so I also think coverage is non-existent. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Glass Eye at a Keyhole[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable work Dronebogus (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added contemporary reviews from The Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Oklahoma Star. The book is pretty widely quoted; Poole coined the phrase "He who laughs, lasts." — Toughpigs (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve The article is lacking enough citations from reliable sources but a quick google search brings up mosttly listings of where to get the book, but there are several results that specifically quote the book. Appears to me to meet WP:books rule #1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star7924 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This meets the basic standards for notability. There is no viable merge target so this needs to be expanded. Archrogue (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs' reviews and WP:OLDBOOK. It's obscure, but two reviews and quotations in a book I just added to the further reading just about gets it notability IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbee, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This spot doesn't appear on topos until fairly late, I'm guessing mostly because they hadn't been updated. At any rate, it's exactly as the first GBooks hit on the name describes it: "a point on the Sacramento Northern Railway less than a mile east of Colusa". And that's what the topos show: a spur into some manufacturing concern, by that point sitting on the eastern edge of town. It's obvious this was never a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be more GNIS error junk. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to closer, this article is part of a campaign of making many, many junk articles that the author carried out in 2009. They are all cited to GNIS (a bad source) and Durham (a potentially good source, but they've ignored how Durham actually describes these locations). We're ~300 AFDs in with thousands left to go. There is no need to relist these AFDs if they've received a delete !vote and doing so is just going to clog up AFD with relistings. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, back a decade ago it probably seemed like a good idea to make a lot of articles from what seemed at the time to be reliable sources. The problem is with the follow-through: in the end, someone has to go through and take all these stubs and try to turn them into something substantial—or try to get rid of them. Either way, a lot of work is involved, which was sloughed onto someone else. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that Mangoe, the author in question had already been an admin for two years at the time they made this article (their RFA was in 2007) and carried on making articles like them until ~last year. It was pointed out at the time to them that GNIS was not a great source. I assume making thousands of articles like this was good faith at the start but we've ended up with counties in California with 3 times more "ghost towns" (in reality, "never-were towns") than inhabited locations - surely they should have realised at some point that this wasn't a good idea? I guess that's all water under the bridge at this point though, and you're right that they've basically sloughed all this work off onto other people and now we have to deal with it. My proposal is to apply WP:TNT to the worst of these articles (i.e., the ones that are GNIS/Durham only) since this is basically the epitome of a TNT situation - rescuing anything from these articles is way more work than just deleting the lot and recreating the few that might be worth recreating (assuming there are any). FOARP (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In short, I believe this article currently fails WP:NOTABILITY because it is WP:TOOSOON.

The article currently statisfies the following criteria:

It is verifyable, as the sources that are referenced are considered reliable by WikiProject Eurovison.
It is very likely to take place because it's a recurring event and two countries have already confirmed their participation, although of course that's not a guarantee (see the Eurovision Song Contest 2020).
It does not contain original research or other content that would warrant deletion.

However, I believe that the 2021 edition of the contest has not received significant coverage from independent sources. Most coverage is currently about the 2020 edition which happened last Sunday, and only a few Eurovision-centric sources are reporting about the next contest (for example, take a look at the references section; it is almost entirely Eurovoix).

The lack of significant coverage is also evident from the fact that the article is very empty; it only contains a small bit about the host country, and a few countries that intend to participate. However, that's of course not a criterion for WP:TOOSOON.

I already had a discussion about this yesterday on the article's talk page, but it did not have a resolution. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify - Regardless of whether it is appropriate to be live or not, some of the information here is valuable. If it gets deleted, it is just gonna have to be re-created again. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is probably the best option. Deleting it won't really help because it will just pop back up again like they always do. I strongly urge against keeping it as there is just too much WP:CRYSTAL this far out from when it is scheduled to take place. Grk1011 (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like the best idea. I’ll change my pick inline with this. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable event. Coverage is significant enough and will only continue to grow in future. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article will only continue to grow and it is valuable information. If it gets deleted then it will soon have to be re-created again. Aris Odi ❯❯❯ talk 03:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not necessary to re-create it from scratch; we could also just draftify it. My point is to wait until it has actually grown and has become notable enough, and then put it in the mainspace again. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that sounds like the best idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that the host country has been announced, it should definitely be kept in the mainspace. The article is well-sourced and substantial enough to be kept. Draftifying it will only make the content less accessible (especially for editors seeking to make contributions to the article) and the article will just be recreated over and over again. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least the article now contains info that isn't purely speculation. And although I still think that a full year in advance is way too soon for articles like these, I don't think it's worth it to continue this discussion anymore. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With both host country and broadcaster announced there's really no need to even draftify this. As said above, the article is well sourced and it will only build-up from now on. ― Greeneyed soul (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an annual competition, watched all over the world. Any new information comes at any minute. No need for a draft. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to remind you that we're talking about the 2021 edition, not JESC in general. Just because a recurring event is notable, doesn't per se mean that all editions of that event are notable too, and especially not future ones. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Agree with Grk1011, moving into a draft space is probably the best solution and outright deletion will most likely result in subsequent creation and discussion. I am not disputing the reliability of sources or notability of the event, but there is very little information out there on this at the moment beyond the reveal of the host country (notably without city or venue details) and these details are also already covered on the main JESC article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i prefer keep it --Esc0fans -and my 12 points go to... 18:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I object to draftify, delete, merge, or redirect! The is a notable future event. There are sufficient sources on it. The information in the article is not crystalballing but the data of the event as it becomes known. gidonb (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - JESC 2021 has been confirmed. The article is sourced. I see no reason for deletion at this time. BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insinia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bit unsure about this one. On one hand, the company's and/or the founder's main claim to fame is their Twitter hack, which was indeed well covered by UK media at the time. That seems like WP:ONEEVENT, though, and possibly WP:ILLCON. Other than that, I think this fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company passes the notability requirements in line with WP:CORP. A News Search turned up plenty of results about the company from independent news sources. I appreciate that the article needs to be refined to more appropriate wiki tone.
- Thank you, IP editor (with no edit history other than this AfD...), for pointing out that there are "plenty of results" — would you like to share any of them with us? PS: Please don't edit or delete the comments of others, thanks! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm. It would be great if we could get some thoughts here before we close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graino, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The short, contrived name suggests a rail spot, and that's indeed what it is. Regulatory records mention a Graino Warehouse Co. (address in nearby Grimes) and discuss a loading facility at Graino, which his consistent with the topos. But there's no sign of a town, and there's not even a public road to the place, which lies between a orchard and farm fields. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo evidence this was ever a community. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to any closer tempted to relist: look at the many, many, many other AFDs that are related to the same author using the same sources (GNIS/Durham - GNIS is a bad source, Durham might be a good source but the person who created these articles is simply ignoring how Durham describes them) to create WP:GEOLAND failing articles during the same period in 2009 and ask whether this really needs another week. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newburyport, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't look like this passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Doesn't appear on topographic maps, no GNIS entry, and I can't find anything about it on Newspapers.com. Even searching Newburyport Inyo in California newspapers only brings up results about Newburyport, Massachusetts. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to any closer tempted to relist: look at the many, many, many other AFDs that are related to the same author using the same sources (GNIS/Durham - GNIS is a bad source, Durham might be a good source but the person who created these articles is simply ignoring how Durham describes them) to create WP:GEOLAND failing articles during the same period in 2009 and ask whether this really needs another week. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly never a settlement; article itself makes no assertion of notability and there is simply no evidence of it. User:Hog Farm please do claim back the hours of your life that you have spent on these wild goose chases. Spiderone 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabin Lomac[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This founder doesn't seem to satisfy basic notability. Current sources seem pr only. Mayoticks (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Mayoticks (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mayoticks (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be a well-supported and well-referenced article on a person with a couple of small but notable claims to fame. The Shark Tank appearance may cause someone to want to look up the name, and I'd like them to find information on our encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delphos, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One name drop of this spot calls it Delphos siding, and that's what the topos show as well, along with a warehousing concern that is still there. Not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to any closer tempted to relist: look at the many, many, many other AFDs that are related to the same author using the same sources (GNIS/Durham - GNIS is a bad source, Durham might be a good source but the person who created these articles is simply ignoring how Durham describes them) to create WP:GEOLAND failing articles during the same period in 2009 and ask whether this really needs another week. FOARP (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality: 2.5 north-northwest of Williams along Southern Pacific Railroad", not that it is a community or notable settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Paget[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. Has a notable father and brother, but not seeing evidence of independent notability apart from theTimes obituary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like there's loads of junior solider articles up nowadays. BlueD954 (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't particularly important if they're "junior". What matters is if they are actually notable... Plenty of senior ones aren't! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Heath (footballer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His two minutes of professional football in League Two for Kidderminster means that he technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL. I have struggled to find anything that amounts to WP:GNG coverage and have searched his name in connection with all of the clubs that he has played for in non-league. The coverage is all local and just routine mentions in match reports [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. He appears to now be an U21 coach for Boldmere St. Michaels F.C. as per [17]. There is growing consensus that a borderline NFOOTBALL pass is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed.

In terms of WP:ATD, this could be redirected but I'm not sure where. Spiderone 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that failing GNG comprehensively is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very minor figure who does not really fit on an encyclopaedia covering a broad range of subjects which hopes to avoid overt bias to particular fields or nations. He would have a place on a specialist Fandom site. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It ain’t going to make a blind bit of difference what my opinion is, but surely this player playing in the Football League would qualify this item to remain, like millions of others, or have the rules been changed yet again? Skippo10 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see all of the discussions linked here which all show strong consensus that a technical and trivial passing of NFOOTBALL is not necessarily enough for an article to be kept. There would usually need to be at least a suggestion that the footballer can meet GNG. Spiderone 12:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of WP:NFOOTBALL, it says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is merely a guideline to help us decide whether something will pass WP:GNG. If someone comprehensively fails GNG, it's fair to say that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient. Heath is an amateur footballer who just so happened to play two minutes of a game between two professional teams. Spiderone 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttle, Colusa County, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not quite as certain as I usually am on what this place is, but it seems to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Can't find it on the topos in the supposed location of the railroad southeast of Colusa. No GNIS entry. Newspapers.com hits are for a Tuttle Station (which this probably is), and for the Tuttle Land Company, named after a prominent local family. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources. Can better be used as a mention in the Colusa County article.--Blurz (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the many, many other AFD discussions this author's negligent article-creation campaign has spawned. FOARP (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says under the entry for Colusa: "California Division of Highways' (1934) map shows... a place called Tuttle located nearly 4 miles southeast of Colusa along Sacramento Northern Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Winder[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another person who technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he made a one minute cameo in the old Third Division for Halifax and then faded into complete obscurity after. He does have some coverage post-retirement as he was recently appointed fitness coach at Ipswich. Being a fitness coach at a notable club doesn't make you notable, though, and I don't think the sourcing is enough for WP:GNG. I don't think that Winder warrants a stand-alone article but I'm happy to leave this to the community, hence AfD. Other sources [18] [19] [20] Spiderone 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that failing GNG comprehensively is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More marginal than the Mansfield players nominated because of his subsequent career, but still not notable by Wikipedia standards. A single-subject Fandom site could have him, definitely. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of WP:NFOOTBALL, it says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. NFOOTBALL is merely a guideline to help us decide whether something will pass WP:GNG. If someone comprehensively fails GNG, it's fair to say that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient. Winder is an amateur footballer who just so happened to play one minute (one minute!) of a game between two professional teams. Spiderone 18:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeetha Kalanidhi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a minor music award, presented by a relatively small music academy (Madras Music Academy). I managed to find this reference, but it only briefly mentions the award. No other thorough or reliable sources found. Regards Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator it appears my location has restricted me from being able to find sufficient sources even when a thorough WP:BEFORE was conducted. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Keep. Was there a WP:BEFORE completed before this AfD filing? Also, I would be curious in the characterization of Madras Music Academy as a 'relatively small' music academy. Just a few searches would have shown that Madras Music Academy is amongst the most prestigious carnatic music academies. Back to this specific honorific titular award, a simple search WP:BEFORE would have surfaced an abundance of material. Furthermore, The Hindu calls this award Carnatic Music's Nobel Prize.[[21]. The Deccan Herald calls this award a crowning achievement in a Carnatic musician's career.[22]

Just a few articles to look at from a simple WP:BEFORE
Source	Links
Deccan Herald	[23] [24]
The Hindu	[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
The Times of India	[32] [33] [34]

Ktin (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Holbrook[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 6 minutes of professional football for Mansfield. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG. Almost a carbon copy of Wayne Stark who also made just one appearance for the same club. Spiderone 19:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that failing GNG comprehensively is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My comment re. the other Mansfield players nominated also applies here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our football notability guidelines are broken. We need to scrap the existing mess and writer something that creates a reasonable control on the number of articles created. Otherwise we will soon just be footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Hankey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 25 minutes of professional football for Mansfield. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG; coverage for Ollerton was trivial. Almost a carbon copy of Wayne Stark who also made just one appearance for the same club. Spiderone 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that failing GNG comprehensively is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable in the broader encyclopaedic context. He would have a place on a Mansfield Town Fandom site, or maybe even a lower-division football Fandom site, but not here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are more Mansfield player articles like Stark and this. I declined to nominate those who had at least featured for another club. But they don't really warrant an encyclopedia entry. Geschichte (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Pandita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Out-of-process AfC move that circumspects a salting. Barely passes WP:NFOOTY; probably doesn't pass GNG. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is necessary to separate content issues from conduct issues. Deletion is a content issue, and turns on notability guidelines.
- - It appears that the subject has made one appearance in a fully professional game, and that is sufficient.
  - Articles have been deleted three times:
  - A7
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (2nd nomination).
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (3rd nomination).
  - It appears that he may not have played in a fully professional game at the time of the third deletion discussion, so that the close as Delete was correct, but is no longer governing.
  - I do not like the subordination of special notability guidelines to the general notability guideline. I am aware that I have a minority view. It is my view that special notability guidelines, which are mostly objective, are to be preferred over general notability, which is vague and leads to contentious AFDs and contentious Deletion Reviews. However, I will address both special notability and general notability.
  - This appears to be a case where ultras are carrying their fanatical support into Wikipedia. Ultras can be disruptive at football matches and can be disruptive in Wikipedia.
  - The conduct of the fans should not affect the outcome of a content debate.
  - There are occasionally cases where there has been so much support for someone outside of Wikipedia that it makes them famous for being famous, and that should satisfy general notability for those of us who do not like general notability.
  - The subject marginally satisfies association football notability, and marginally satisfies general notability, in spite of the conduct of the ultras.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per last AFD 7 months ago... Giant Snowman 11:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears subset has finally made a professional appearance... Giant Snowman 11:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is 22 years old and has made his professsional debut in a fully professional league on 30th Nov 2020 that is 3 days ago and is currently playing and passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he has only just qualified for NFOOTBALL so consensus has generally been that we keep such articles as there is a reasonable potential for them to make further appearances. If, however, we revisit this in, say, 5 years and they have not made any other appearances then there should be no prejudice in this going through AfD again Spiderone 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - in fact the weakest of keeps. He marginally passes WP:NFOOTY since he has played two minutes in an FPL at this point but he is on the active squad list and may break through that ceiling at any time - if someone looks at this in a few years and he's out of football and hasn't played another game, this would be a strong delete, which I know isn't really how this works but seems to be the best way to approach this for now. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per what SportingFlyer argued above. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any reasonable notability criteria for footballer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [[35]] Player of a notable league Yadav0281 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above account was less than an hour old when they !voted. Obviously unfamiliar with AfD procedure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played professional league passes WP:NFOOTY. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, generally speaking, the exception to NFOOTY in the case of footballers who played only part of one game ages ago is because they will clearly never play at a professional level again, this person is still close to the start of their career, and therefore keeping the article is preferable for now. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has passed WP:NFOOTY this season. Number 5 7 12:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Jones (footballer, born 1986)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 8 minutes of professional football for Mansfield - cut short due to getting two very quick yellow cards. As interesting as this is, I only found routine coverage of his debut and almost nothing on his subsequent non-league career. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG. Almost a carbon copy of Wayne Stark who also made just one appearance for the same club. Spiderone 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in the large-scale encyclopaedic context: he would fit on a specialist Fandom site but not here. (Should note that I cannot find an "Andy Stuart Jones" - it has never been common as a given name in its own right - on Find My Past for 1986 but can find an "Andrew Stuart M Jones" born in Mansfield who I assume is him. Not that that matters because the lack of notability surely will be obvious.) RobinCarmody (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are more Mansfield player articles like Stark and this. I declined to nominate those who had at least featured for another club. But they don't really warrant an encyclopedia entry. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that failing GNG comprehensively is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for an article.--Blurz (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic People's[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a misunderstanding of disambiguation pages. None of the entries are ambiguous with the title. The pages involved already have hatnotes, which is the correct approach. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All WP:PTM. Nothing would be simply be called the "Patriotic People's" because that is a possessive adjective phrase. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hershey, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 1922 Ca. Rail Commission lists the "County Line and Hershey Warehouses", giving the manager's address as Dunnigan, and they are still there; in fact they show up on every topo that records any buildings. (The larger is a thousand feet long.) What they don't show, nor any other image, is anything else there. It's just another in a long series of shipping points, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note to any closer tempted to relist: look at the many, many, many other AFDs that are related to the same author using the same sources (GNIS/Durham - GNIS is a bad source, Durham might be a good source but the person who created these articles is simply ignoring how Durham describes them, e.g., listing sidings and summits as settlements) to create WP:GEOLAND failing articles during the same period in 2009 and ask whether this really needs another week. These articles are clearly in WP:TNT territory. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-producer negligently misrepresented the source: Durham says "locality: 3.25 miles north-northwest of Dunnigan along Southern Pacific Railroad", not that it is a notable community or settlement, as is obvious on the maps. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly never a community Spiderone 10:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Blackmon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very comprehensive telling of this individual's life, however it does not indicate how the subject is notable per Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. A Google search for the name does not come up with significant discussion in multiple reliable sources. (There are other Jimmy Blackmons mentioned who are not this one.) ... discospinster _talk 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe passes WP:SOLDIER as the air mission commander on the operation that netted #2 and #3 in the famous Most-wanted Iraqi deck of cards? WP:AUTHOR: Cannot find reviews of his books that are not by the publisher, a bookseller or the author. WP:NSPORT: was a world champion archer. Also, while I accept the nom's comment about there being other Jimmy Blackmons, I am still inclined to believe that the JFBlackmon who wrote the article is the same one as the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA puff-piece lacking SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing notability. No RS given for supposed claim of capturing #2 and #3 in the famous Most-wanted Iraqis. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal puff-piece with almost no reliable sources, and no significant notability. ( If he actually captured two people numbered 2 and 3 in the playing card set, that would not be very notable.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article with only primary sources and not enough of even them (the few secondary ones don't seem to support anything relevant). Besides, this has so many issues that I wouldn't know where to begin, other than by TNT'ing it and starting from scratch. And to pick up on an earlier point about this person's military record satisfying notability, that could be the case, but even then it would barely warrant a paragraph or two, not this epic. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I came across this via WP:THQ#Jimmy Blackmon Page Editing Feedback and did some rudimentary cleanup, but the entire article has the feel of a PR release and probably needs to be re-written from scratch with lots of trimming done and more reliable sources cited. It seems like this might be a case of WP:NEXIST since the subject appears (at first read) to meet WP:NSOLDIER for at least a stub, but again lots of PR speak would need to be removed. There are also WP:AUTO/WP:COI concerns, but those can be resolved separately if the consensus is that the subject is notable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.